Retrospective cohort identifies how de novo portal vein thrombosis influences outcomes in liver transplant recipients, suggesting closer monitoring is necessary.
Background: Although portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is well-characterized in the pre-transplant setting, de novo PVT following liver transplantation (LT) remains poorly defined. Little is known about its incidence, timing patterns, or impact on long-term outcomes in adult deceased-donor LT (DDLT). Study Design: Using a national multicenter electronic health record network (~101 million U.S. adults), this retrospective cohort identified DDLT recipients without pre-existing or intraoperative PVT (1995–2025). De novo PVT was defined as new thrombosis after postoperative day 1 (POD-1) and classified as early (POD-1–30) or late (>POD-30). Propensity score matching (1:1) balanced demographics, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory data. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, re-transplantation, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), all-cause hospitalization, and rejection. Risks were estimated using Cox and logistic regression, with survival evaluated by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: Among 21,758 DDLT recipients, 1,049 (4.8%) developed de novo PVT, 71% after POD-30. After matching (1,018 per group), de novo PVT was associated with higher five-year risks of mortality (aHR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.63), re-transplantation (aHR 2.08; 1.51–2.88), all-cause hospitalization (aHR 1.19; 1.08–1.31), and rejection (aHR 1.57; 1.37–1.79). EAD odds were also increased (aOR 1.46; 1.22–1.75). Risk patterns persisted across 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up. Kaplan–Meier showed lower overall survival (P=.027) and reduced freedom from re-transplantation (P <.0001) in PVT group. Early and late PVT had comparable mortality and hospitalization risks, but late PVT carried higher rejection risk. Conclusions: De novo PVT affects ~5% of DDLT recipients and is associated with worse outcomes. This underrecognized complication warrants closer surveillance and further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alomar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: